我国刑事法官庭审指挥权之探讨

近年来我国的刑事审判方式改革一直强调弱化法官在庭审中的职权,而主张学习英美当事人主义模式下法官的消极克制。但是,弱化法官职权并让法官消极克制并不意味着可以取消法官在庭审中的能动性。为实现审判之目的,保障庭审公正、高效和有序,必须赋予法官庭审指挥权。庭审指挥权包括诉讼许可和禁止权、程序异议裁决权、庭审引导权和告知权、证据调查指挥权、诉讼进程控制权和庭审秩序维持权。在我国,应当建立科学合理的庭审指挥权体系以及控辩双方权利救济机制,促进法官行使自由裁量权的客观化和检察官地位的当事人化,并通过转变司法观念和提高法官素质保障庭审指挥权的正当行使。     

我国刑事庭审中人证调查的几个问题——以“交叉询问”问题为中心

我国刑事庭审的人证调查技术须置于我国刑事审判的特定的"法空间"中进行观察与研究,由于相关制度因素缺失与支持条件不足,目前的庭审人证调查的有效展开受到诸多限制并因此而形成自身特点。调查方式为控辩询问而非交叉询问,并形成调查被告人与证人的特殊制度安排与操作方法。证据调查规则尤其是禁止诱导性发问的规则难以按照交叉询问制度要求设置,但也应当做出适当的规则限制以维系正当性并追求真实性。随着配套改革应强化人证调查主线并一以贯之,同时加强法官关照义务。审判指挥权应当适当集中于审判长。     

物证的运用

在刑事审判实践中,由于公诉机关在法庭上出示的大多证据,尤其是证人证言,都是几经传来才到法庭。刑事诉讼的证人不是向法庭或法官作证,而是向警察和检察官作证,然后由提起公诉的检察官向法庭或法官转述证人证言。在庭审中有好多被告人和辩护人对证据有异议,这样没有得到质证的证人证言,就被法官新证认定了,这存在极大的危险性。本文介绍了各种物证的＂效能＂,以期对各种物证的运用有所帮助。     

“面对面”的权利——论我国刑事被告人对质权制度的完善

刑事被告人的对质权是指刑事被告人享有与提出对己不利证言的证人进行面对面诘问的权利,在庭审质证中,对质权作为一项重要的诉讼权利,它使争议能尽量集中在庭审中解决,从而保证庭审的实质化。另外,对质权对于发现案件真实和保障诉讼权利也具有极其重要的作用。我国刑事被告人的对质权包括"面对面"对质的权利、出庭审判的权利以及交叉询问的权利。目前我国刑事被告人对质权制度存在的问题涉及刑事被告对质权的启动以及不出庭证人证言的证据能力等。而完善我国刑事被告人的对质权制度,需要树立公正审判的理念,确立对质权的权利属性,对不出庭证人证言的证据能力加以限制和规范,并同时完善庭前证据开示制度。     

以审判为中心呼唤科学的交叉询问规则

2015年11月，在周文斌案第二季庭审中，被告人周文斌的辩护人之一清华大学法学院易延友教授对出庭证人胡彪斌的当庭询问引发广泛关注。笔者认为，在我国未来的刑事法庭上，交叉询问能否成为常态，应当成为衡量“推进以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革”成败的重要标志。这是因为：以审判为中心，必然要求法院在案件事实的认定上，不能再对侦查阶段控诉方收集的有罪证据材料照单全收，而是要求法官在法庭上通过法定的证据调查程序对控诉方向法庭提交的证据材料进行审查、核实，切实承担起对控诉方指控犯罪的证据材料有无证据能力和证明力的守门员职责。在对证人证言的法庭调查中，如果仅以侦查阶段控诉方收集的以书面笔录形式存在的证人证言为调查的对象，那么所谓的法庭证据调查就很难发挥真正的作用，因为仅凭一份书面的证言笔录是很难准确判断其真假的。在证人来到法庭时，控辩双方应当按照何种规则对证人进行发问，裁判者应当根据何种规则行使庭审指挥权从而规范控辩双方对证人的询问，是我国交叉询问规则必须回答的问题。     

庭审方式改革与控辩审之角色定位

刑事审判的效率与公正虽取决于多种因素,但是与刑事庭审的方式确有着密切的关系。在庭审过程中法官调查证据、适用法律的形式、途径以及控、辩、审三方的地位及相互关系对事实的认定、证据的取舍、法律的适用的都会产生直接的影响。我国原有法官唱主角的庭审方式已经不再适应现代刑事司法的要求,庭审方式的改革和完善已成为刑事司法改革的重点内容之一。改革的目标就是厘清控、辩、审三方职能和关系,正确界定法官的地位和作用,确保刑事审判中的控诉、辩护和审判职能应分别由三方各自独立而互不依附的诉讼主体承担,三方的诉讼行为也不得与其诉讼职能相违背,与他们进行或参与审判活动的具体目标应该保持一致。     

初探刑事诉讼中证人出庭作证制度

一、刑事诉讼中证人出庭作证的重要意义新刑事诉讼法对人民法院庭审方式作了重要修改 ,使之进一步完善。新审判方式的重要特点是 ,由控辩双方向法庭出示证据 ,对证人证言质证 ,展开法庭辩论 ,法官从中查清起诉事实 ,核实并认定证据 ,进而依法做出公正的判决。证人在新审判方式中发挥重要作用 ,尽管原刑事诉讼法也规定“证人证言必须在法庭上经过公诉人、被害人和被告人、辨护人双方讯问 ,质证 ,听取各方证人的证言并经过查实以后 ,才能作为定案的根据 ,但在审判实践中 ,按原审判方式 ,审判人员对人民检察院提起公诉的案件 ,经过审查 ,认为犯…     

刑事诉讼证人出庭作证制度的完善

我国刑事诉讼证人出庭作证的现状在我国刑事诉讼中,刑事案件的证人大多不愿或不敢出庭作证,故现行通常做法是控、辩双方分别将自己的证人陈述作成证言笔录,在庭审举证阶段,仅以宣读形式了之.法官也不乏轻松地加以"认证"。证言笔录,属于传闻证据的一种.作成证言笔录仅是将证人证言初步固定化。证人证言若要成为定案证据,必须经双方充分质证,此种认定应以法官直接审理判断为宜。     

新间接审理主义 “庭审中心主义改革”的主要障碍

自1979年以来,刑事审判制度尽管历经多次变革,却仍然保留了一种新间接审理主义的审判方式。刑事法庭将公诉方案卷材料奉为庭前查阅和当庭调查的对象,使得证人证言笔录和被告人供述笔录在法庭上具有无可争议的证据能力,甚至可以成为法庭认定案件事实的直接根据。这一审判理念的形成,与那种流水作业的诉讼构造模式、实体真实至上的价值取向、法官倾向于刑事追诉的理念以及建立在办案期限基础上的效率意识有着直接的关系,并带来了一系列消极的诉讼后果。在一定程度上,刑事法官庭前产生先入为主的预断、法庭审判流于形式、法官排斥被告方的辩护观点、法庭审理失去纠错能力等,都是新间接审理主义所造成的负面影响。我国法院近年来对庭审实质化所做的改革探索,尽管有一定的积极效果,但没有从根本上摆脱新间接审理主义的困扰。可以说,克服新间接审理主义的消极作用,确立真正的直接和言词的审理方式,是中国刑事司法改革所要追求的目标之一。     

略论刑事审中法官的地位与权力

修正后的刑事诉讼法以公正审判为核心，以诉讼中的人权保障为主题对刑事审判方式进行了重大的改革。在审判程序上较多地吸收借鉴了英美等国控辩双方对证据核查的交叉询问规则，加强了庭审中控辩双方的对抗性，相对削弱了法官在庭审中的主导地位，使法官处于居中裁判的地位，以保障刑事审判能在民主、公正、高效的运行机制下进行。然而修正后的刑事庭审方式并非走向完全的对抗制，而有自己的特点，这集中体现在法官在庭审中的地位和权力上． 一、法官在庭审中的地位 在典型的英美对抗式诉讼程序中，法官充当着非常重要的法律裁判者的角色，他…     

反思与重构:论我国预断排除规则的构建

预断排除规则是诉讼制度中保障公正审判的一个重要规则。为消除我国刑事诉讼制度中存在诸多导致法官预断的因素 ,需要实行起诉一本主义 ,建立庭前准备法官与审理案件的法官分离制度 ,规范法官的回避制度和起诉书的制作 ,将被告人自白的证据调查顺序后移 ,建立证据能力规则 ,并限制法官的庭外调查。     

关于完善我国民事诉讼当庭认证制度的思考

认证的过程就是法官对于证据材料的证据力和证明力的认定过程。认定的对象不同,其认定的主体、时间、方式等也应当有所差别。目前我国法院系统有关认证的做法,是司法改革中各法院自行实践的结果。由于缺乏正确的理论和明确的法律规定,庭审认证极不统一,影响了认证制度的法律效果。     

法官庭外调查权的合理性质疑

法官庭外调查权是职权主义诉讼模式的一个重要特征 ,我国修改后的刑事诉讼法对此进行了保留。但是 ,由于它混淆了侦查与审判的职能 ,违背了诉审分离的原则 ,破坏了法官的中立形象 ,损害了审判的公正 ,给诉讼理论和司法实践都造成了混乱 ,因此 ,建议取消法官的庭外调查权 ,相应地完善有关的配套措施。     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

我国"印证证明模式"对商业贿赂犯罪惩治的影响

我国的刑事证明模式是“印证证明模式”,其特点是强调证据之间的相互印证。导致这一模式在我国司法实践中盛行的因素包括不甚理想的法官素质、卷宗笔录中心主义的审判方式、科层型的司法权力机构、不独立的法官等等。这一证明模式对我国商业贿赂犯罪的惩治产生了不利的影响。     

“<Emphasis Type="Italic">Peer effects</Emphasis>” or “<Emphasis Type="Italic">quasi</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">peer effects</Emphasis>” in Spanish labour court rulings

The current work seeks to ascertain whether rulings on dismissal cases issued by incumbent judges in Spanish labour courts are influenced by whether they are acting alone in their own court or sharing duties with other judges such as replacement judges, support judges or incumbent judges from other courts. We consider that a court is treated when more than one judge rules in it. Then, an analysis is conducted so as to determine the effect of such a treatment on the percentage of cases ruled in favour of the dismissed worker. The data used in the research are taken from the information recorded at court level provided by the statistics kept by the General Council of the Spanish Judiciary. A total of 2888 observations were available, corresponding to the period spanning 2004 to 2012. As regards the findings, it may be concluded that there is a significant positive impact on the number of dismissal cases ruled in favour of workers when incumbent judges are not acting alone in their court, particularly when the incumbent judge solves cases together with another professional judge.     

论我国刑事诉讼中被追诉人的测谎权

山木集团前总裁宋山木强奸案向我们提出了被追诉人有无权利要求测谎的问题。只要在刑事诉讼中允许使用测谎技术,无论是允许其作为证据使用还是仅仅将其作为审查判断证据的手段,被追诉人单方面向法院申请测谎,实质上均是一种试图向法院澄清事实真相的诉讼证明行为。被追诉人的测谎权是一种相对权,而非绝对权。鉴于我国目前的现实情况,测谎只能作为审查判断言词证据的方法,尚不能作为独立的证据适用,因此法院是否批准被追诉人的测谎申请,应以有测谎之必要为前提。     

The Impact of Court Delays on the Prosecutor and the Defendant: An Economic Analysis

One important aspect of the economic theory of criminal court delay is to understand how the prosecutor and the defendant make their decisions, and how these respond to changes in trial delay. If both parties jointly maximise expected utility, trial delay may increase or decrease the number of trials, depending upon the decision makers' attitudes towards risk. The main policy implication is that providing the criminal courts with more resources in the form of additional judges and court capacity may lengthen the trial queue rather than shorten it. This is a counterintuitive result contrary to popular belief.     

从纸上谈兵到水滴石穿——非法口供排除程序的构造反思

高举人权保障大旗的刑事诉讼立法淡化了刑事诉讼构造的路径选择,但是,基于一种结构缺陷,我国新近立法所确立和完善的审判前供述排除规则很容易沦为"纸面上的法"而难以转化为"行动中的法"。一方面,因为没有庭前法官和庭审法官的分离与法官和陪审团的分权,一元化的法庭可能会造成非法获取的口供从大门排除又从窗户跳进,而"口供排除"和"宣读口供"的两阶段在质证上存在着叠床架屋,更有为普遍地采纳审判前供述这一传闻证据"背书"的反其道而行之的趋势。另一方面,控辩不平等导致庭审最终落入长于法律辩论而轻视事实调查的旧习,而法官也陷入到底是积极调查还是消极听审的内在职责冲突之中。因此,本文设想以案例指导跳脱立法中心主义的虚无缥缈,以配套程序摆脱实质判断标准的人言人殊。     

HOW JUDGES THINK ABOUT RACIAL DISPARITIES: SITUATIONAL DECISION‐MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

Researchers have theorized how judges’ decision‐making may result in the disproportionate presence of Blacks and Latinos in the criminal justice system. Yet, we have little evidence about how judges make sense of these disparities and what, if anything, they do to address them. By drawing on 59 interviews with state judges in a Northeastern state, we describe, and trace the implications of, judges’ understandings of racial disparities at arraignment, plea hearings, jury selection, and sentencing. Most judges in our sample attribute disparities, in part, to differential treatment by themselves and/or other criminal justice officials, whereas some judges attribute disparities only to the disparate impact of poverty and differences in offending rates. To address disparities, judges report employing two categories of strategies: noninterventionist and interventionist. Noninterventionist strategies concern only a judge's own differential treatment, whereas interventionist strategies concern other actors’ possible differential treatment, as well as the disparate impact of poverty and facially neutral laws. We reveal how the use of noninterventionist strategies by most judges unintentionally reproduces disparities. Through our examination of judges’ understandings of racial disparities throughout the court process, we enhance understandings of American racial inequality and theorize a situational approach to decision‐making in organizational contexts.